Text of Toomey-Manchin Gun law

[Brian4Liberty]

Here is a link to the full text of the Toomey-Manchin Amendment for Background checks and related items:

http://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=ab1523e1-38a8-4d42-94a0-788bcbb228fb

First item of interest, a ban on private sales of arms?

Page 21, Line 13:


‘‘(t)(1) Beginning on the date that is 180 days after
13
the date of enactment of this subsection and except as pro-
14
vided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person
15
other than a licensed dealer, licensed manufacturer, or li-
16
censed importer to complete the transfer of a firearm to
17
any other person who is not licensed under this chapter,
18
if such transfer occurs—
19
‘‘(A) at a gun show or event, on the curtilage
20
thereof; or
21
‘‘(B) pursuant to an advertisement, posting,
22
display or other listing on the Internet or in a publi-
23
cation by the transferor of his intent to transfer, or
24
the transferee of his intent to acquire, the firearm.

[Acala]

Word of mouth only. Othewise, through an FFL. No FFL in town? Too bad for you. Get in the car and drive.

[jbauer]

wont make it through the house so it shouldn't matter.

[Brian4Liberty]

Word of mouth only. Othewise, through an FFL. No FFL in town? Too bad for you. Get in the car and drive.

I suspect that posting a for sale sign at the range would be illegal too.

[Brian4Liberty]

Another item, Medical records. Page 18, line 6, they can go to the background checklist:


SEC. 117. CLARIFICATION THAT SUBMISSION OF MENTAL
6
HEALTH RECORDS TO THE NATIONAL IN-
7
STANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYS-
8
TEM IS NOT PROHIBITED BY THE HEALTH IN-
9
SURANCE PORTABILITY AND ACCOUNT-
10
ABILITY ACT.
11
Information collected under section 102(c)(3) of the
12
NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (18 U.S.C.
13
922 note) to assist the Attorney General in enforcing sec-
14
tion 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code, shall not
15
be subject to the regulations promulgated under section
16
264(c) of the Health Insurance Portability and Account-
17
ability Act of 1996 (42 U.S.C. 1320d–2 note).

It should be noted that Military Veterans who are deemed ""mentally incompetent" will automatically be added to the list. Pg 13 line 17 (SEC. 115.) describes some process as to notifications and appeals.

Interesting enough, there is no due process or appeal process included for non-military citizens.

[Acala]

wont make it through the house so it shouldn't matter.

It needs to be stopped in the Senate if possible. If your senator is a possible pivot, now is a good time to lean on them.

[Acala]

I suspect that posting a for sale sign at the range would be illegal too.

I agree.

[Acala]

Another item, Medical records. Page 18, line 6, they can go to the background checklist:



It should be noted that Military Veterans who are deemed ""mentally incompetent" will automatically be added to the list. Pg 13 line 17 (SEC. 115.) describes some process as to notifications and appeals.

Interesting enough, there is no due process or appeal process included for non-military citizens.

I think it would "adjudicated" mentally incompetent, which would include some due process. You would have counsel and there would be a hearing before a judge.

[Brian4Liberty]

I think it would "adjudicated" mentally incompetent, which would include some due process. You would have counsel and there would be a hearing before a judge.

It's a long section. The title says "adjudicated", then they talk about "determined by the Secretary to be mentally incompetent". Not sure how it all works out, and when someone gets put on the list?


Ԥ 5511. Conditions for treatment of certain persons
17
as adjudicated mentally incompetent for
18
certain purposes
19
‘‘(a) I
N
G
ENERAL
.—In any case arising out of the
20
administration by the Secretary of laws and benefits under
21
this title, a person who is determined by the Secretary to
22
be mentally incompetent shall not be considered adju-
23
dicated pursuant to subsection (d)(4) or (g)(4) of section
24
922 of title 18 until—

Then they have this language about future determinations:


‘‘(f) F
UTURE
D
ETERMINATIONS
.—
7
‘‘(1) I
N GENERAL
.—Not later than 180 days
8
after the enactment of the Public Safety and Second
9
Amendment Rights Protection Act of 2013, the Sec-
10
retary shall review the policies and procedures by
11
which individuals are determined to be mentally in-
12
competent

[Brian4Liberty]

More analysis on the internet:

http://www.pagunblog.com/2013/04/12/more-on-the-toomey-manchin-amendment/


One of the big surprises is that it does not cover advertisements solely on the Internet, but also to publications. I asked someone for a Black’s Law Dictionary definition of publication:

“Generally, the act of declaring or announcing to the public.”

But the person (who has a law degree) who I asked believed the Court would be more likely to use the ordinary definition, which combined with the mention of “listing,” would mean a periodical, gun club newsletter, etc. So just holding up a sign would not likely be construed as publication. Nonetheless, by failing to define the term in the amendment, it’s open to interpretation by the courts. If they mean a newspaper, magazine or other periodical, they can plainly say so.

A reader pointed out that it would make it illegal to rescue guns from a buyback. I thought that might be plausible if a sign or verbal announcement would be considered publication. I think it’s still plausible, but it would be a stretch. I think it would also be a stretch to suggest that a buyback is a gun show. The guns are not being displayed for sale, you’re soliciting a sale from people walking buy. UPDATE: A reader surmises it would actually make buybacks illegal. Buybacks are generally advertised in publications, on the Internet, and in newspapers. Actually, yes, it would make buybacks illegal, I believe.

[Brian4Liberty]

Slippery slope. I would also point out that the "no fee" background checks would probably succumb to some future revenue and tax bill, hidden deep in hundreds of pages of legislation.

"Want to sell that gun? Pony up $250 for a mandatory background check."


Toomey and Manchin’s Slippery Slope
This is just a baby step — nothing to worry about, wingnuts.

... Let’s allow, too, that, as promised, the law affords “exemptions” for in-person private transfers; that it “lets” family members lend or gift one other their firearms without inviting deleterious consequences; and that it stops happily short of imprisoning free American citizens for permitting others to shoot their guns on their land. For good measure, let’s also grant that the bill contains a couple of positive things, including that it would henceforth be legal for an American to buy a handgun outside of his state of residency providing that he underwent a background check. All in all, let’s admit that, in and of itself, this bill is not the end of the world.

Does this mean that you should shrug your shoulders nonchalantly and turn to other things? Should you stay at home? Should we presume that qui tacet consentire videtur?

Not on your life.

Alas, there is peril ahead. Why? Because today’s “exemption” is tomorrow’s “loophole.” No sooner will the glorious presidential ink have dried on that abject page, than those provisions that were sold a few days earlier as commonsense exemptions — the product of “bipartisan compromise” and other media-tested platitudes — will become structural problems, ripe for “standardizing.” Sure, Congress wouldn’t be so gauche as to include A or B or C in their bill today. But have no doubt: Within a few weeks of the bill’s passage, the eerie progressive silence that has marked this tortured process will be broken, and when it is, legions of prominent gun controllers will take to their feet in order to argue that it makes “no sense” for there to be “exemptions” to the almost universal background-check system.

They will cynically inquire as to whether keeping these loopholes open for the “industry” is more important than the lives of children, and they will profess that the existing system simply “can’t work” without them. Studies will be commissioned to demonstrate that tying off these “loose ends” is all that stands between the United States and broad sunlit uplands. And, while demonstrating not only that they don’t know the slightest thing about guns but that they don’t care that they don’t, ThinkProgress and Talking Points Memo and Salon will smirk and make oh-so-smug jokes about “black helicopters” and militias. After all, we already regulate commercial sales, Internet sales, and gun shows, right? This is just a baby step — nothing to worry about, wingnuts.